We are only beginning to understand what the meaning of the, “phenomenological velocity,” solution truly is and how the curvatures that result from the solutions to the v-variable are effecting the perceived phenomena in our reality

The auspicious symbols of the umbrella and the conch in Buddhist philosophy are perhaps a hidden message, or a hint to the true nature of reality delivered down through the ages to those who might seek to perceive and inquire. However, the mathematical expression of the, “umbrellic transformation,” is one rarely discussed in Buddhist circles that I have encountered if ever, and it is certainly not vocally embodied in the vibrant message promoted and propagated by the majority of the Buddhist community, though many Buddhists do have a respect for the sciences, and math is highly prized in the societies of India and Nepal.

We are only beginning to understand what the meaning of the, “phenomenological velocity,” solution truly is and how the curvatures that result from the solutions to the v-variable are effecting the perceived phenomena in our reality. The idea that we can solve for something that cancels out with itself, that we can prove it cancels out with itself, yet we can solve in a non-trivial way that there is a complex polynomial equation that fits as a solution is a bit mystifying, however it is real. The step by step solution is attached.

We ask ourselves, “why do the galaxies spiral?” We ask ourselves, what is the phenomenon of, “dark matter,” and we lack answers to these basic questions, but with the new dimension (or metric) that has emerged from within the structure of the circle's folding into a cone, and the new solution to the v-variable within Lorentz coefficient as presented within The Geometric Patterns of Perception (Emmerson, 2009), we have a way forward.

Physicists have assumed that mass is a real phenomenon, and have based all their formulations upon this concept. However functional the postulate of mass's, “being,” is, it is still an assumption on its face. Just because a theory works, does not mean it's technically correct. Does one actually perceive a mass? Or has one inferred that a concept of mass must exist as the basis of reality, and if so, “on what notion was this inference based?” The Geometric Pattern of Perception Theorems base their functionality of describing the motion of and perceived being of, “objects,” in the world through pure algebra and geometry of the transformation of ideal shapes. Through perceiving and describing these transformations phenomenologically, we can extract a plentitude of equations describing transformation and motion, which act as articulation of perceived phenomena of transformation and motion and may suffice for explaining curvature of space time relating with gravity, including the curvature perceived as correlating with dark matter.

People speak of Energy to describe the phenomenon of that which is neither created nor destroyed, but really, all that is needed to describe that phenomenon is contained within the, “phenomenological velocity,” equation, also known as V-Curvature, since it's not really even necessary to consider it velocity. We have a wave equation within the fabric of perceived reality, the expressions of which were derived from the most basic, fundamental ideal forms, that never equals zero, meaning it most likely never began, and it certainly will never end (or it can't be created, and it can't be destroyed). From this (loose) definition of Energy, we now have a theoretical "mass-energy," relation, if we still need to cling to the concepts of mass and energy.

I have attached the step by step procedure for the, V-Curvature solution *(formerly known as phenomenological velocity), and I have attached the derived expression that never equals zero.

Logged

People speak of Energy to describe the phenomenon of that which is neither created nor destroyed, but really, all that is needed to describe that phenomenon is contained within the, “phenomenological velocity,” equation, also known as V-Curvature.